Summary: A woman complained the Council wrongly decided to end its homelessness duty in her case and then unreasonably evicted her from her homelessness accommodation. But we will not investigate the complaint because the woman had statutory review rights she could have used to challenge the Council’s decision, and there is no evidence that fault by the Council regarding other matters caused her an injustice to warrant our further involvement.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Miss B’s representative provided about her complaint. In addition I took account of information from the Council about Miss B’s housing case. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Housing Act 1996 gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes decisions about the suitability of accommodation they are offered and about ending the housing duty in their case. If an applicant wants to dispute a negative review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
5. In September 2021 the Council offered Miss B accommodation with a private landlord to fulfil its homelessness duty in her case. Miss B refused the offer as unsuitable and the Council then ended its duty in her case. At that point Miss B had a right to ask the Council to review its decisions that the property was suitable and to end its homelessness duty, but she did not do so.
6. However I see no reason why Miss B should not be expected to have used her statutory review rights, and if necessary her right of appeal to court, if she felt the Council’s decisions in her case were wrong. As a result we will not investigate this part of her complaint.
7. The Council also gave Miss B notice to leave her homelessness accommodation after it ended its duty in her case. But later the Council decided it would make Miss B a further, discretionary offer of private rented housing and allow her to stay in her homelessness accommodation in the meantime.
8. The Council subsequently offered Miss B another property, which she also turned down. The Council then gave her 24 days’ notice to leave her homelessness accommodation. As Miss B did not leave at the end of the notice period, the agents changed the locks. However Miss B broke back in and has remained at the accommodation ever since.
9. Miss B complained about the eviction. But I am not convinced we would find grounds to fault the Council in this respect as it appears entitled to have locked Miss B out in these circumstances, having given her reasonable notice.
10. But even if we were to conclude the Council had not acted properly in this respect, I do not see we could say Miss B suffered any lasting injustice as a result. In particular she was soon able to regain access to the property and has been able to continue living there until now. In addition, the Council said it is still trying to help her into private rented accommodation on a discretionary basis.
11. I suggest the Council was at fault when it made its further offer of private rented accommodation. This is because it sent Miss B another letter saying the offer was a final accommodation offer to end its homelessness duty, and that she had a right of review about the matter. This was misleading as the Council had already ended its duty in Miss B’s case and she had no further statutory review rights.
12. However I saw no evidence to suggest this error caused Miss B any significant disadvantage or inconvenience. In addition the Council said it will review its practice of sending further final accommodation offer letters in these circumstances. As a result I do not see we have reason to pursue this particular matter any further.

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its housing duty in her case and evict her from her homelessness accommodation. This is because Miss B had review rights she could have used to dispute the Council’s decision, and there is no evidence that she has suffered a significant injustice as a result of any fault by the Council regarding her eviction from her homelessness accommodation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman